Visual Editors
Visual Editors, NFP was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 2004.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
ldegroot
Action Figure
Joined: 10 Mar 2004
Posts: 22
Location: Sun-Sentinel
Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:42 pm
|
|
| |
We had a lot of heart-felt discussions too.
On Wednesday, the graphic was introduced at the 11 a.m. news meeting. The response was favorable, but editors were concerned that it was the opinion of a single doctor, and that we would try to present it as the "final word" on the issue. We addressed these issues with heavy attribution to Dr. Bradley in all areas of the graphic, and LaMendola sent the images to two other neurologists, both of whom agreed with with Bradley's assessment. To give our editors even more confidence, and because of the heavy attribution to Dr. Bradley, we also took the unusual step of having him proof the graphic to ensure that we had properly documented his comments.
The updated graphic was presented at the 4 p.m. meeting as a candidate for 1A. At this point we ran into two key issues:
1. Governor Bush came forth saying that a state neurologist had examined the same scans we were using, and had said additional tests should be done.
2. The story the graphic was to accompany was not yet done, and editors felt that they could not make a decision without seeing the text first.
Based on these issues, we decided to reconvene at 6 p.m. to consider the graphic and the story as a whole, and to see how daily developments would affect the story.
At the 6 p.m. meeting, editors were split as to whether the graphic should be on 1A. One group felt that the graphic illustrated much of the discussion on Schiavo's physiological state and deserved to be on the front page. Others felt that there was dissenting medical opinion (Bush's expert) that wasn't reflected in the graphic, and some felt that this could even lead to confusion among our readers. Some in this group felt it might be best to hold the graphic a day. Still others felt that it simply didn't pass the breakfast test.
We had a healthy and lively debate, and in the end it was decided that the graphic by all means deserved to be in the newspaper, but would not appear on the front page. Both the graphic and the story ran on 14A, a full page we set aside for expanded coverage of the issue.
The graphic actually changed little during this process. The key issues that were addressed including making sure it was very clear that we were simply presenting an independent doctor's analysis, and making sure that we stuck to the science. Any conclusions that might be made were left to the reader.
Dave and Orlando's AME/Visuals Bonita Burton posted descriptions of discussions at the Sentinel here:
http://www.newsdesigner.com/blog/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
Previous topic
Next topic
